A Touch of Ethics on Chicken Transgenics

Kate Peters - 41406771

Genetic manipulation (GM) is not a new development, with centuries of deliberate cross breeding to produce poultry more suited to human purposes (Almond & Parker 2003). Technology implementations have out-competed previous farm practices; with the ability to achieve traditional breeding goals at a more proficient level (Uzogara 2000).

The goals for transgenic animals are the same as traditional breeding (Campbell et al. 2006); to produce desirable characteristics of improved feed conversion efficiencies, growth rates, lower fat levels, disease and pest resistance, leaner meat, a capacity to utilize low-cost protein diets, and improved egg compositions (Heller 2003).

Although still on an experimental basis; scientists can produce “transgenic animals” by implementing a gene from one animal into the genome of another (Campbell et al. 2006). This process involves the removal of oocytes and in vitro fertilization. The desired gene from another organism is cloned and inserted directly into the nuclei of the fertilized eggs. Some of the cells integrate the foreign DNA, the transgene, into their genomes and express the desired trait/s. Engineered embryos are then surgically implanted into a surrogate mother. Successful development results in a transgenic animal; containing a gene from a third ‘parent’ (which can even be a different species!) (Campbell et al. 2006).

Over the last decade, chickens have become a major target in transgenic research for the mass production of human proteins (Han 2008). Significant technical qualities of chicken genetic and physiological traits give rise to a number of advantages (Han 2008):

• Transgenic line establishment in a 5 month generation time - a fertile rooster is capable of inseminating 10 hens/3 days, recipient hens can produce ten fertile eggs (Han 2008).
• Chickens are relatively easy to maintain (size and traits) (Han 2008).
• Simple composition of egg proteins reduces the cost of protein purification after transgenesis (Han 2008).

Despite the benefits of GM poultry, there is understandable controversy (Uzogara 2000).

• Are humans free to exploit animals for our own purposes, while still implementing humane treatment (Almond & Parker 2003)?
• Does GM of chickens for human benefit push the boundary between humans and non-human animals in a moral and biological sense (Pascalev 2006)?

It is argued that traditional principles of animal welfare, interests and rights are inadequate for evaluating the morality of GM (Pascalev 2006).

References:

• Almond, B & Parker, M 2003, Ethical Issues in the New Genetics, Ashgate Publishing, England.
• Campbell, NA & Reece, JB & Meyers, N 2006, Biology – Seventh Edition – Australian Version, Pearson Education, Australia.
• Han, J.Y 2008, ‘Germ Cells and Transgenesis in Chickens’, Elsevier – CIMID, vol 648, pp. 1-20.
• Heller, K.J (ed.) 2003, Genetically Engineered Food – Methods and Detection, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany.
• Pascalev, A.K 2006, ‘We and they: Animal welfare in the era of advance agricultural biotechnology’, Elsevier – Livestock Science, vol. 103, pp. 208-220.
• Uzogara, S.G 2000, ‘The impact of genetic modification on human foods in the 21st century: A review’, Elsevier – Biotechnology Advances, vol. 18, pp. 179-206.